Littleblue has terrible opinions about spacex and space in general. He's just someone with a mild science interest who's just learned how to solder on SMLED and thinks their science now. It's frankly disgusting.
Only just come across this and the article poster appears very confrontational. It's always best to admit your mistakes, rather than dig a deeper hole for yourself. No one is an expert of everything, but networking is my field, so would like to think I know a little on the subject. The information in this article is way off, not a real world application. Appears there are very few places for healthy and useful debate.
Ah, you're not here in good faith then. To comment on my attitude and to ignore the attitude of who I was responding to "LittleBlueBalls" is amazing, lol.
Your responses are antagonist. As indicated, you cannot admit your mistakes. This is your article and you are responding with hostility. As for your commenters, I responded to one of their views upon you, which you have only supported with your response. You prompted me to look you up on twitter and I no longer will engage with you. You are hostile and dangerous. You have recently been called out as arrogant or worse when it comes to racial issues, which is quite frankly disgusting, far worse than your reactions to technology commenters.
I admit my mistakes when I make them. You haven't pointed out any mistakes I have made.
I respond to hostility with hostility. CSS is a disgusting human being. He is racist, misogynistic, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, and I have the receipts to prove all of those. I'm not going to be nice to him, especially not when he comes onto my blog to insult me.
Responding to hostility with hostility should be the last course of action. Take the higher ground, that quite often ends things quickly.
The mistake I was eluding to was contention; their minimal offering would not be sufficient at full capacity. Reducing contention would mean reducing subscribers and that would lead to reduced income, nothing like the perfect world figures in the article where bandwidth is offered at such a low rate per subscriber; this would be the only way to offer a good, viable service for many. For instance, my current provider gives me a maximum speed and guarantees 50% of this at all times, starlink has no such guarantee (ignoring environmental issues caused by weather etc.....).
I felt I needed to respond to elaborate also on the hostile and dangerous comment. When you respond with hostility and ignorance (we all fall foul to this at times) to sensitive issues, this is dangerous. It doesn't necessarily mean you aiming to offend groups, but it can and quite often does as they are on the backfoot, defending their beliefs. Beliefs are impossible to argue with, so best course is usually to agree with them or agree to disagree and walk away. I don't know who CSS is, but my advice would be to ignore him and he will go away.
Hopefully you will take what I have said in good heart, nothing here is intended to offend you.
I did that for half a year, pretty much gave up about the time CSS called me a cripple. He's garbage and deserves zero respect. Interesting how you're so concerned about my conduct but not at all concerned about his.
I never said anything at all about low bandwidth offered per subscriber. You claim to be a network engineer, right? But you don't know the difference between the speeds customers can reach while use, and the actual amount of data they use?
I have a 40mbps connection. I can get 40mbps whenever I need it. But I don't *use* 40mbps on average. When I tell you what my average use is, it's not me limiting my available bandwidth. Same story here.
I understand oversubscription just fine. That's why HughesNet is so garbage. They only provision 0.5mbps per subscriber.
CSS is "LittleBlueBalls", aka Common Sense Skeptic.
As for what I read about you on twitter, where you were being called out and your comments about this CSS on here, I read between the lines and assume now that you were not intending to offend these people, however, you certainly rubbed them the wrong way. Words can often be taken out of context and then the defence of them can further work against you, especially when dealing with beliefs and feelings of others. I hope that situation has now gone away.
Hey CSS, nice of you to show up. I'm not surprised you don't know what an average is.
So tell me, if you watch 30 minutes of 4K, and then browse Twitter for 3 hours, what was your average data usage per second? Well, using the rough guidelines from your link, that comes out to 4.4mbps average usage. But wait, Netflix only recommends 15mbps. It's almost like streaming services use compression. Weird. Okay, that comes out to 3mbps average.
Hmm, what about people who don't have 4K monitors and TVs? What about people who don't have Netflix? God, it's almost like the FCC's measured data actually accounts for everything.
Just gonna jump in here. You should read up on contention, peak usage hours, QoS and more. An average usage doesn't work for peak usage. I would say, if someone is willing to spend a fortune on internet, they will not be limiting usage to just low network bandwidth applications. When signing up for contracts I always look at the minimum offering they can deliver, that is the available bandwidth with all connected users; in this case the comment is correct about poor bandwidth per user.
The figures I gave were for peak usage during "rush hour". They have nothing to do with the actual speeds users will see, they are a completely different metric. Users will still see full speeds, there is no limiting of usage.
Open up task manager, go to performance, and click on your network connection. Then load youtube and watch a video. You'll see spikes of data usage at your full speed, and large sections of no usage at all. You are able to use high-network bandwidth, but your average is far lower than the stated speed you signed up for.
Your calculations are way off, laughable so. 2.7mbps is not sufficient for most modern communication tools, let alone streaming services and media heavy data, for which a majority use their internet connection for. These calculations of yours also assume that the satellites are capable of this, I've read reports (including on one you cited) that is could be only 10gbps, reducing your calculation to 1.35 Mbps. Who would pay $100 a month for that? You need to consider the minimum acceptable standard and work from that. Currently, by the way, starlink has 400k subscribers, far short of 24.5 millions customers and unlikely to hit that anytime soon.
I agree, you are certainly no expert. Best stick to what you know and move away from what you don't know, it'll make you look less stupid.
Already addressed the speed thing. Again, average real-world use. Not how much speed somebody needs during max usage. Open up your task manager, go to performance, and monitor your network while you browse Twitter. Then monitor it while you watch Netflix or Youtube. Oh, look at that! There are peaks and valleys, even when streaming. I wonder what that means for averages?
Starlink has closer to 1 million subscribers, but it doesn't matter. I didn't say they had 24.5 million or they would any time soon. Honestly, learn to read. I was talking about Thunderf00t's calculations for data costs with Starlink under full load. Just divide revenues and costs by 25 and the story is still the same, data costs are insignificant. $5.85 billion in revenues vs $0.2 billion in data costs. Geeze, math is hard!
The contention calculations are correct, that is; max connected users sharing the available bandwidth. The numbers are not great, worsening with peak time usage and many applications not having the bandwidth available to function. As for monitoring bandwidth usage, this is always best to do on the router itself, it will give the combined usage of all the household/business connected devices.
Littleblue has terrible opinions about spacex and space in general. He's just someone with a mild science interest who's just learned how to solder on SMLED and thinks their science now. It's frankly disgusting.
Only just come across this and the article poster appears very confrontational. It's always best to admit your mistakes, rather than dig a deeper hole for yourself. No one is an expert of everything, but networking is my field, so would like to think I know a little on the subject. The information in this article is way off, not a real world application. Appears there are very few places for healthy and useful debate.
Ah, you're not here in good faith then. To comment on my attitude and to ignore the attitude of who I was responding to "LittleBlueBalls" is amazing, lol.
Your responses are antagonist. As indicated, you cannot admit your mistakes. This is your article and you are responding with hostility. As for your commenters, I responded to one of their views upon you, which you have only supported with your response. You prompted me to look you up on twitter and I no longer will engage with you. You are hostile and dangerous. You have recently been called out as arrogant or worse when it comes to racial issues, which is quite frankly disgusting, far worse than your reactions to technology commenters.
I admit my mistakes when I make them. You haven't pointed out any mistakes I have made.
I respond to hostility with hostility. CSS is a disgusting human being. He is racist, misogynistic, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, and I have the receipts to prove all of those. I'm not going to be nice to him, especially not when he comes onto my blog to insult me.
"Hostile and dangerous" lol, okay.
Responding to hostility with hostility should be the last course of action. Take the higher ground, that quite often ends things quickly.
The mistake I was eluding to was contention; their minimal offering would not be sufficient at full capacity. Reducing contention would mean reducing subscribers and that would lead to reduced income, nothing like the perfect world figures in the article where bandwidth is offered at such a low rate per subscriber; this would be the only way to offer a good, viable service for many. For instance, my current provider gives me a maximum speed and guarantees 50% of this at all times, starlink has no such guarantee (ignoring environmental issues caused by weather etc.....).
I felt I needed to respond to elaborate also on the hostile and dangerous comment. When you respond with hostility and ignorance (we all fall foul to this at times) to sensitive issues, this is dangerous. It doesn't necessarily mean you aiming to offend groups, but it can and quite often does as they are on the backfoot, defending their beliefs. Beliefs are impossible to argue with, so best course is usually to agree with them or agree to disagree and walk away. I don't know who CSS is, but my advice would be to ignore him and he will go away.
Hopefully you will take what I have said in good heart, nothing here is intended to offend you.
I did that for half a year, pretty much gave up about the time CSS called me a cripple. He's garbage and deserves zero respect. Interesting how you're so concerned about my conduct but not at all concerned about his.
I never said anything at all about low bandwidth offered per subscriber. You claim to be a network engineer, right? But you don't know the difference between the speeds customers can reach while use, and the actual amount of data they use?
I have a 40mbps connection. I can get 40mbps whenever I need it. But I don't *use* 40mbps on average. When I tell you what my average use is, it's not me limiting my available bandwidth. Same story here.
I understand oversubscription just fine. That's why HughesNet is so garbage. They only provision 0.5mbps per subscriber.
CSS is "LittleBlueBalls", aka Common Sense Skeptic.
As for what I read about you on twitter, where you were being called out and your comments about this CSS on here, I read between the lines and assume now that you were not intending to offend these people, however, you certainly rubbed them the wrong way. Words can often be taken out of context and then the defence of them can further work against you, especially when dealing with beliefs and feelings of others. I hope that situation has now gone away.
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/broadband-speed-guide
This may help you, but I doubt it. This is a single user data requirement, not shared.
Hey CSS, nice of you to show up. I'm not surprised you don't know what an average is.
So tell me, if you watch 30 minutes of 4K, and then browse Twitter for 3 hours, what was your average data usage per second? Well, using the rough guidelines from your link, that comes out to 4.4mbps average usage. But wait, Netflix only recommends 15mbps. It's almost like streaming services use compression. Weird. Okay, that comes out to 3mbps average.
Hmm, what about people who don't have 4K monitors and TVs? What about people who don't have Netflix? God, it's almost like the FCC's measured data actually accounts for everything.
Just gonna jump in here. You should read up on contention, peak usage hours, QoS and more. An average usage doesn't work for peak usage. I would say, if someone is willing to spend a fortune on internet, they will not be limiting usage to just low network bandwidth applications. When signing up for contracts I always look at the minimum offering they can deliver, that is the available bandwidth with all connected users; in this case the comment is correct about poor bandwidth per user.
The figures I gave were for peak usage during "rush hour". They have nothing to do with the actual speeds users will see, they are a completely different metric. Users will still see full speeds, there is no limiting of usage.
Open up task manager, go to performance, and click on your network connection. Then load youtube and watch a video. You'll see spikes of data usage at your full speed, and large sections of no usage at all. You are able to use high-network bandwidth, but your average is far lower than the stated speed you signed up for.
I demonstrated this visually in this Twitter thread to somebody else who was confusing average data usage with peak speeds: https://twitter.com/littlebluena/status/1446926029579120643
Your calculations are way off, laughable so. 2.7mbps is not sufficient for most modern communication tools, let alone streaming services and media heavy data, for which a majority use their internet connection for. These calculations of yours also assume that the satellites are capable of this, I've read reports (including on one you cited) that is could be only 10gbps, reducing your calculation to 1.35 Mbps. Who would pay $100 a month for that? You need to consider the minimum acceptable standard and work from that. Currently, by the way, starlink has 400k subscribers, far short of 24.5 millions customers and unlikely to hit that anytime soon.
I agree, you are certainly no expert. Best stick to what you know and move away from what you don't know, it'll make you look less stupid.
Already addressed the speed thing. Again, average real-world use. Not how much speed somebody needs during max usage. Open up your task manager, go to performance, and monitor your network while you browse Twitter. Then monitor it while you watch Netflix or Youtube. Oh, look at that! There are peaks and valleys, even when streaming. I wonder what that means for averages?
Starlink has closer to 1 million subscribers, but it doesn't matter. I didn't say they had 24.5 million or they would any time soon. Honestly, learn to read. I was talking about Thunderf00t's calculations for data costs with Starlink under full load. Just divide revenues and costs by 25 and the story is still the same, data costs are insignificant. $5.85 billion in revenues vs $0.2 billion in data costs. Geeze, math is hard!
The contention calculations are correct, that is; max connected users sharing the available bandwidth. The numbers are not great, worsening with peak time usage and many applications not having the bandwidth available to function. As for monitoring bandwidth usage, this is always best to do on the router itself, it will give the combined usage of all the household/business connected devices.
The numbers are fine: https://www.commscope.com/blog/2021/tracking-bandwidth-consumption-start-of-the-roaring-20s/